C2C - Civics Discussion Thread

[Hydromancerx]

Here is the total list of civics and their categories that I have planned for the next few months.

Spoiler :

Energy: No Power, Private Energy, Public Energy, Green Energy, Wireless Energy
Electricity: No Electricity, Private Electricity, Public Electricity, Green Electricity

Aren't those the same thing?

 

[CIVPlayer8]

Civics should not be the solution to game balance problems. If they are then they will need to change every time the balance is fixed or moved, They should just focus on their area and how that area evolves and changes over time.

In my opinion the civics should provide extra flavour to the game and there should not be one correct civic option for every occasion.

The first civic should be bad. Then there should be 0-3 per era giving the different flavour of play options. I miss the Patriarchy/Matriarchy options for the prehistoric era. I used either as my needs dictated, they were both good options for the time.

I do wonder if we could have solved many of the problems we are having by changing the number of food consumed by a citizen to 4 rather than 3.

Well, I would say that is the closest to my opinion, and I would definantly say that the first few civics in a category should be bad. And actually, I do have plans to return Patriarchy and Matriarchy, I think it is in my first post, lemme check...

Aren't those the same thing?

Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Thunderbrd]

@ CivPlayer8: Could you check out this thread? There's some things in there that I've done for you and an item that could use your consideration (the tags for the Religious Disabling gameoption). That option will be reworked so its not incredibly important right now but for as long as it remains a game option it could be helpful to have the tags for it utilized on civics.

 

[JosEPh_II]

<snip> and I would definitely say that the first few civics in a category should be bad.<snip>

<snip>

Which automatically negates what DH said.

Civics should not be the solution to game balance problems. If they are then they will need to change every time the balance is fixed or moved, They should just focus on their area and how that area evolves and changes over time.

In my opinion the civics should provide extra flavour to the game and there should not be one correct civic option for every occasion.

The first civic should be bad. Then there should be 0-3 per era giving the different flavour of play options. I miss the Patriarchy/Matriarchy options for the prehistoric era. I used either as my needs dictated, they were both good options for the time.

Either the Civics in a category are stair step types (current model) Or they should emulate DH's example. And as DH also said Civics should Not be trying to balance Food and Gold and the game. It's role IS to offer different directions and flavors to the games flow.

JosEPh

 

[strategyonly]

Which automatically negates what DH said.



Either the Civics in a category are stair step types (current model) Or they should emulate DH's example. And as DH also said Civics should Not be trying to balance Food and Gold and the game. It's role IS to offer different directions and flavors to the games flow.

JosEPh

Is Mercenaries looking a little weird lately or is it just me?

 

[JosEPh_II]

In what way SO?

JosEPh

 

[strategyonly]

In what way SO?

JosEPh

Isn't mercenaries a negative to a positive way to do things?? Meaning you have to BUY mercenaries to do your bidding, and killing, but the people resent you for it, but when its over and done, they are happy that you used them, because of the result, if you get my meaning??? Then crucify you. Or am i off base here?

 

[JosEPh_II]

No not off base at all. The ppl are also happy they did not have to do the dirty work either, but still look down on using the mercs.

JosEPh

 

[DRJ]

Isn't mercenaries a negative to a positive way to do things?? Meaning you have to BUY mercenaries to do your bidding, and killing, but the people resent you for it, but when its over and done, they are happy that you used them, because of the result, if you get my meaning??? Then crucify you. Or am i off base here?

No not off base at all. The ppl are also happy they did not have to do the dirty work either, but still look down on using the mercs.

SO is right.

Mercenaries were often hired BECAUSE the people were angry about the elites.

For instance, in Paris the king used to have foreign troops stationed because he didn't trust his own battalions.
The people seeing this got even more angry because this gave them the impression he was against them - You don't trust us? Off with your head!

A lot of examples like this where mercenaries are used against the own people can be found in history.

So the backslash of mercenaries as a civic has to be represented very well.

Being able to outsource the military is cost intensive. Only the rich can do so and their interests are usually not those of the poor people...

On the other hand, mercenaries have the effect that the crime goes up (they tend to be rude and go rogue). The looting % goes down (they get a substantial amount).

Are people happy? yeah nobility perhaps.

Mercenary civic should have different positive and negative benefits in combination with different power civics (like higher rev with monarchy & nobility etc).

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I would have thought that Matriarchy/Patriarchy would have gone on the Rule category. They fit naturally with tribes and villages before city states. They are not really about education. Some Australian Aboriginal tribes were matriarchies others patriarchies. Both had gender based educational systems where boys learn to become men and girls learn to become women. So perhaps the early education should be "Gender Based".

 

[CIVPlayer8]

I would have thought that Matriarchy/Patriarchy would have gone on the Rule category. They fit naturally with tribes and villages before city states. They are not really about education. Some Australian Aboriginal tribes were matriarchies others patriarchies. Both had gender based educational systems where boys learn to become men and girls learn to become women. So perhaps the early education should be "Gender Based".

Well, the idea behind putting them in Education, is that, at that point in time, the Dad/Mom is the head of the household, and the children are educated as such. Although your point does make more sense.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I don't think they should be under education. Even if a Dad or Mom is head of a household it don't mean they will be educated any more or less. Plus civics are generally for the entire nation and not individuals like a mom or dad.

A Matriarchy/Patriarchy is perfect for rule since that means it is lead by a man or a woman. If anything society might be more appropriate too in that its a male or female dominated society. Which is independent of education.

Please return education civic to how it was.

Spoiler :

Education

Ignorance
Req Tech: None
Upkeep: None

Oral Tradition
Req Tech: Oral Tradition
Upkeep: None

Written Tradition
Req Tech: Writing
Upkeep: Medium

Military Tradition
Req Tech: Military Training
Upkeep: Medium

Religious Training
Req Tech: Theology
Upkeep: Medium

Apprenticeship
Req Tech: Guilds
Upkeep: Low

Corporate Education
Req Tech: Corporation
Upkeep: Medium

Compulsory Education
Req Tech: Compulsory Education
Upkeep: High

Propaganda
Req Tech: Fascism
Upkeep: High

E-Education
Req Tech: Computer Networks
Upkeep: Low

Time Travel
Req Tech: Time Travel
Upkeep: Astronomical

This civic I worked the most on and I already stated I did not want you messing with it. Please put it back or I will.

Things like Matriarchy/Patriarchy have their place but not in the education category.

EDIT: Looks like you have not committed anything yet. *phew* You scared me for a sec.

EDIT2: I also agree with DH that Matriarchy/Patriarchy best best under Rule. Some soemthing like ...

Spoiler :

Rule

Obedience
Req Tech: None
Upkeep: None

Matriarchy
Req Tech: Cultural Identity
Upkeep: None

Patriarchy
Req Tech: Cultural Identity
Upkeep: None

City State
Req Tech: Masonry
Upkeep: Low

Magistrates
Req Tech: Code of Laws
Upkeep: Low

Meritocracy
Req Tech: Meritocracy
Upkeep: High

Bureaucracy
Req Tech: Civil Service
Upkeep: High

Vassalage
Req Tech: Vassalage
Upkeep: Medium

Confederacy
Req Tech: Leadership
Upkeep: Low

Federal
Req Tech: Rifling
Upkeep: Medium

Martial Law
Req Tech: Fascism
Upkeep: High

Grid
Req Tech: Computer Networks
Upkeep: Astronomical

Mind Control
Req Tech: Thought Scanning
Upkeep: Astronomical

 

[Nimek]

and please add healthcare civic category and remove borders catefory because borders is something negotiated by two civs each other (right of passage, open borders, free trade agreement) not civic at all

 

[strategyonly]

Were are all the "fixed borders" at, if they dont want it, i thought thats why there is an option for it, i personally like the heck out of it!!

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

and please add healthcare civic category and remove borders catefory because borders is something negotiated by two civs each other (right of passage, open borders, free trade agreement) not civic at all

Were are all the "fixed borders" at, if they dont want it, i thought thats why there is an option for it, i personally like the heck out of it!!

I believe Nimek is talking about the civic borders not the game option fixed borders.

The current civic Borders assumes you are playing with the game option "Start as minors" also. An option I never use. I say get rid of it and improve the diplomacy. Including adding a "fixed border" agreement between you and your neighbours.

 

[Koshling]

I believe Nimek is talking about the civic borders not the game option fixed borders.

The current civic Borders assumes you are playing with the game option "Start as minors" also. An option I never use. I say get rid of it and improve the diplomacy. Including adding a "fixed border" agreement between you and your neighbours.

I don't think a fixed border agreement will work to replace (all of) the mechanics of the current fixed borders, but it isn't a bad idea to replace part of it. The part it doesn't represent (and which isn't really about 'fixing' bathing anyway) is the ability to spend gold to take control of an (occupied) tile. That part is more 'annexation' than 'fixing' anyway, but splitting it into a separate 'canAnnexTerritory' (which would remain as a civic capability I guess??) and moving the fixing aspects into a diplomacy agreement (and making them FIXED again, so that culture cannot override AT ALL when you have that agreement) would make sense.

Only slight issue is that we'd need AI logic to evaluate when to make such an agreement - I suspect it would be very rare for it to be beneficial to both parties, so a naïve AI for I would probably always have one side or the other deny use of it, which would obviously be a gameplay issue.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I know many players of C2C and AND love the Fixed Borders and what it represents. But I miss what it did to the base BtS gameplay with Culture. Even without FB OFF, Culture is nowhere near what early RoM or even vanilla BtS was. And that is what I lament about.

Since the advent of Afforess' invention of FB, Culture is a shadow of what it used to be. And I don't know if the underlying mechanics of C2C and FB will ever bring Culture back to what it once was. I miss it. And that's why I fought against it so hard back in v17. But I'm a minority here so...I guess I'll just have to "keep rollin' with the punches".

JosEPh

 

[strategyonly]

I know many players of C2C and AND love the Fixed Borders and what it represents. But I miss what it did to the base BtS gameplay with Culture. Even without FB OFF, Culture is nowhere near what early RoM or even vanilla BtS was. And that is what I lament about.

Since the advent of Afforess' invention of FB, Culture is a shadow of what it used to be. And I don't know if the underlying mechanics of C2C and FB will ever bring Culture back to what it once was. I miss it. And that's why I fought against it so hard back in v17. But I'm a minority here so...I guess I'll just have to "keep rollin' with the punches".

JosEPh

I guess i dont get it, i thought there was only one Fixed Borders way of "doing things?" And i have NO idea what the old way was because i never really played BtS, or for that matter AND.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I'm talking about Before Fixed Borders was introduced to RoM and AND by Afforess. Before it ever existed.

And you Played early RoM and based NWA off of zappara's work withOut REV too. I may still have that 1st PM from you inviting me to try NWA!

JosEPh

 

[strategyonly]

OK, when did the "city limits" get so darn HIGH?

I believe EACH one is too high, and Despotism is outrageous. Everyone else. opinions pls . . . SO